wait, wait, wait... you're not telling me that you're going to take what Romney said out of context and run w/the twisted literal interpretation of his "I'm not concerned" words over the larger content of the speech now are you? a la "you didn't build that"

wait, wait, wait... you're not telling me that you're going to take what Romney said out of context and run w/the twisted literal interpretation of his "I'm not concerned" words over the larger content of the speech now are you? a la "you didn't build that"

Just as Obama was clearly talking about the gov't building the infrastructure that business' rely on in his context, Romney was clearly talking about swaying voters. He's not concerned about trying to sway those voters who rely heavily on the gov't for their incomes. because they're going to vote for Obama regardless. he's concerned about the 5% in the middle who claim to not yet know who they're going to vote for (which I liken to unicorns... because they don't exist).

but it will be taken out of context, run ad nauseum on all the biased media w/the spin of "put a fork in him". and more importantly used as the distraction of the day to take focus off the coordinated terror attacks on embassies that the administration is spinning as some spontaneous outburst of peace loving muslims pissed off that someone made an anti-muhammad film (even though most of them probably don't even have internet access, and they have even said it was a targeted, coordinated attack).

"Indeed: Has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country, and who have so little substance to say about the future of our country?"

Just as Obama was clearly talking about the gov't building the infrastructure that business' rely on in his context, Romney was clearly talking about swaying voters. He's not concerned about trying to sway those voters who rely heavily on the gov't for their incomes. because they're going to vote for Obama regardless. he's concerned about the 5% in the middle who claim to not yet know who they're going to vote for (which I liken to unicorns... because they don't exist).

but it will be taken out of context, run ad nauseum on all the biased media w/the spin of "put a fork in him". and more importantly used as the distraction of the day to take focus off the coordinated terror attacks on embassies that the administration is spinning as some spontaneous outburst of peace loving muslims pissed off that someone made an anti-muhammad film (even though most of them probably don't even have internet access, and they have even said it was a targeted, coordinated attack).

OK so what you are saying is that the statement is the statement, just that the umbrage is misplaced. And that's basically what Romney said at his press conference. He himself said he stood by the statement.

So that's not really taking it out of context, is it? Nobody is editing the statement to give it a different meaning. It means what it means... I think what you are trying to say is that only burdensome leaches on society could possibly be butthurt about it?

"Indeed: Has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country, and who have so little substance to say about the future of our country?"

I watched the 6 or 7 "mother jones" videos on the first link and I am failing to see the problem.

He seems spot on and extremely coherent in the videos.

Was I watching the wrong videos?

Nope, those were them. It's a subtle issue of semantics, but "my job is not to worry about those people" could seem somewhat harsh. Now the President gets to say that he ran to represent the entire country.

I guess the other invalid assumption is that all of those non-taxpaying citizens vote dem. There are plenty of Joe the Plumber types who suckle at the govt teat too, despite their illusions of grandeur. it's really an income threshold question, and it's not fair to say that there are zero poor and lower middle class republicans.

Nope, those were them. It's a subtle issue of semantics, but "my job is not to worry about those people" could seem somewhat harsh. Now the President gets to say that he ran to represent the entire country.

I guess the other invalid assumption is that all of those non-taxpaying citizens vote dem. There are plenty of Joe the Plumber types who suckle at the govt teat too, despite their illusions of grandeur. it's really an income threshold question, and it's not fair to say that there are zero poor and lower middle class republicans.

A subtle issue of semantics???
As David Brooks Wrote:
"Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?"

Romney was talking about how to get elected... but he also showed a clear disregard, or even disdain for HALF OF THE COUNTRY. Not to mention that he went on to talk at length about the Middle East... and proved in doing so that he's nothing more than the mouth of his old friend Netanyahu. This makes me equally as ill as his "47%" nonsense. The man wants to run the most powerful country in the world and will take his Middle Eastern policy orders from a right-wing Israeli. And he doesn't even believe there is a solution to work toward!
Your hero Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

He is saying 47% of the people that vote for obama not 47% of America, so if 100 people vote for obama 47 of them are likely to be mooching from taxpayors - and that is probably correct.

Huh? No he's not. At least that's not the way conservative think-tankers heard the statement.

From the weekly standard blog post:

Quote:

It's worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes are Romney supporters—especially of course seniors (who might well "believe they are entitled to heath care," a position Romney agrees with), as well as many lower-income Americans (including men and women serving in the military) who think conservative policies are better for the country even if they're not getting a tax cut under the Romney plan. So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.

Romney wants to keep the level of military funding high, he wants to keep taxes on high earners low, and he wants to balance the budget. So on who's backs will this fall? Consider that deficit spending has risen higher with Republican presidents, and as Clinton noted and the fact checkers agreed.. nearly twice as many jobs were created during Democratic administrations since the 60's. So what exactly are Republicans hoping to achieve? Not getting it. Not to mention that Medicare is a serious problem and he's complaining about Obama's $700B cut in future Medicare spending increases.

What you guys don't seem to get about Obama is that the deficit spending increase was voted into law with a Republican administration before he entered office. You can't cut the budget when you've come into office with a horrible economy and a public mandate to decrease unemployment.

Wes, I'm neither. I just actually read the quote "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are . . ."

I saw the headlines about the taped videos yesterday so i clicked, watched and listened. After listening I thought to myself.......are you kidding me? Heard nothing wrong with what Romney said. It's political strategy. They are sitting around a table debating on how to go forward with their campaign. Give me a break! Honestly i am not a huge Romney fan although i will be voting for him. IMO I think Obama has a good personality, he's charming yet other than that I feel he doesn't have a clue on how to get the country running on all 8 cylinders again. His own words destroy him, if after 4 years I haven't got the job done my record will show it. It's been 4 years. Reagan came in with a mess worse then we have now. he turned it around. Obama has had 4 years and things have gotten worse. Whoever gets in next whether Obama is reelected or Romney gets in will IMO go down as the worse President in history. My reasoning is because the debt bubble is about to burst, we can't keep patching it because it is at a point of no return. The next 4 years could be some of the worse in the history of the country and I feel sorry for whoever is in the White house because they are going to be blamed for it.. Under Obamas watch the middle east has become so unstable and we are worse off now in the world of diplomacy than we have ever been. Obama is a weak President anyone with half a brain can see that. I'm almost embarrassed to have this guy representing our great country. Not saying Romney is the go to guy I'm just saying Obama is a failure at the job and it's time to get someone else in there.

I dont think it is so much context as it is the spin. Romney makes a statement and the focus by the liberal press becomes who he offended or was the timing proper. This is then repeated by the Obama homers. And, we all know who the partisan hacks are and we can see it is just a diversion. Obama should be running on his record. That is what successful presidents do.

The question should be the differences in point of view. For example, did Obama's reaction to the attacks on our embassies encourage more attacks or would Romney's firmer approach have stopped the attacks or infuriated the crowd. Or, is Obama promising more money to welfare recepients or is Romney planning to cut their benefits to aid the rich.

I dont think it is so much context as it is the spin. Romney makes a statement and the focus by the liberal press becomes who he offended or was the timing proper. This is then repeated by the Obama homers. And, we all know who the partisan hacks are and we can see it is just a diversion. Obama should be running on his record. That is what successful presidents do.

The question should be the differences in point of view. For example, did Obama's reaction to the attacks on our embassies encourage more attacks or would Romney's firmer approach have stopped the attacks or infuriated the crowd. Or, is Obama promising more money to welfare recepients or is Romney planning to cut their benefits to aid the rich.

You make a valid and compelling argument. A rarity around here. I agree that Obama should be running on his record... but for whatever reason, he doesn't do much of that. I think it's partially because this country is still in rough shape, so standing there talking about all the good things you've done makes you look like a tool.
Plus, you've got the multitudes of silly spin, mindless distractions and outright lies being thrown around from the other side. Lies the true believers from the right excitedly gobble up and puke back out to whoever will listen. (Yes, this BS happens on the left too, and in equal amounts.)

"Measured in sheer legislative tonnage, what Obama got done in his first two years is stunning. Health care reform. The takeover and turnaround of the auto industry. The biggest economic stimulus in history. Sweeping new regulations of Wall Street. A tough new set of consumer protections on the credit card industry. A vast expansion of national service. Net neutrality. The greatest increase in wilderness protection in fifteen years. A revolutionary reform to student aid. Signing the New START treaty with Russia. The ending of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Even over the past year, when he was bogged down in budget fights with the Tea Party-controlled GOP House, Obama still managed to squeeze out a few domestic policy victories, including a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction deal and the most sweeping overhaul of food safety laws in more than seventy years. More impressively, on the foreign policy front he ended the war in Iraq, began the drawdown in Afghanistan, helped to oust Gaddafi in Libya and usher out Mubarak in Egypt, orchestrated new military and commercial alliances as a hedge against China, and tightened sanctions against Iran over its nukes.

Oh, and he shifted counterterrorism strategies to target Osama bin Laden and then ordered the risky raid that killed him.

That Obama has done all this while also steering the country out of what might have been a second Great Depression would seem to have made him already, just three years into his first term, a serious candidate for greatness.

And yet a solid majority of Americans nevertheless thinks the president has not accomplished much. Why? There are plenty of possible explanations. The most obvious is the economy. People are measuring Obama’s actions against the actual conditions of their lives and livelihoods, which, over the past three years, have not gotten materially better. He failed miserably at his grandiose promise to change the culture of Washington (see “Clinton’s Third Term”). His highest-profile legislative accomplishments were object lessons in the ugly side of compromise.
...
The irony is that, while Barack Obama has achieved a tremendous amount in his first term, the only way to secure that record of achievement in the eyes of history is to win a second. And to do that, he first has to convince the American voters that he in fact has a record of achievement."

The bolded paragraph begins to touch on my own disappointments with the man. And yes, I have been disappointed. But not nearly enough to jump ship to Romney or the Republican Party in general, which just seems to be clawing it's way so far to the right that eventually it'll just tear itself out of the picture altogether. What used to be Republican values are now considered moderate or even liberal views.

It's one thing to stand strong in your convictions. It's another to constantly try to out-crazy one another.

So if all of you are saying Romney's statements are "taken out of context" by the "evil liberal media", why can't Democrat's argue the same point about the whole "you didn't build that" line from Obama. Oh no, for three weeks it was a rally cry by conservative talk pundits and Fox News, hell it was part of the GOP convention rally cry. But now the boohooing and crying starts, "Romney's words were taken out of context", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. He and the GOP are reaping what they have sewn. It's laughable.

I dont think it is so much context as it is the spin. Romney makes a statement and the focus by the liberal press becomes who he offended or was the timing proper. This is then repeated by the Obama homers. And, we all know who the partisan hacks are and we can see it is just a diversion. Obama should be running on his record. That is what successful presidents do.

The question should be the differences in point of view. For example, did Obama's reaction to the attacks on our embassies encourage more attacks or would Romney's firmer approach have stopped the attacks or infuriated the crowd. Or, is Obama promising more money to welfare recepients or is Romney planning to cut their benefits to aid the rich.

And why isn't Romney running on his record. And I am not talking about his record while at Bain Capital or as the head of the SLC Olympics. I am speaking of his record as governor of MA. You know when he was a pro-choice candidate, when he was pro-gun control, and when he instituted Romneycare?

As much as I dislike Romney, I'm not certain he said anything untrue. So, the problem is that he voiced an unpopular truth.
That almost puts points in his corner from my perspective.

Except I doubt that it's true at all. Look at the chart I posted. Many of the red states represent a lot of low wage earners. I think that there are a lot of Republican voters who are in that alleged 47% percent of people who pay no federal tax. They definitely aren't all Democrats.

"distraction of the day"
aaa......no
We can now call him Dick Romney, it is no spin, he doesn't care about 47% of all Americans, even Fox can't spin this one! He is Done, stick a(silver) fork in him
There is nothing dumber than a poor Republican. I know all you Republicans on this site are rich, so I am not offending anyone. Hell I can't offend you anymore than Dick Romney can.
and I thought the outcome of the presidential election wouldn't be known until November!

That's the funniest part of all - he's talking about a decent share of people who are voting for HIM, not Obama. And yes, reaping what they sow - every campaign event Ryan repeats Obama's "clinging to guns and religion remark" (a similarly stupid statement) - is there some truth to it? Sure just as there is some truth to what Romney says. Is it politically wise to put his foot in his mouth like that when he's already trailing? Don't think so.

Except I doubt that it's true at all. Look at the chart I posted. Many of the red states represent a lot of low wage earners. I think that there are a lot of Republican voters who are in that alleged 47% percent of people who pay no federal tax. They definitely aren't all Democrats.

Yeah, but those are the voters the GOP doesn't like to talk about (I see them all the time here in TN). They are like the uncle that is an ex-convict. Yeah, he is still part of the family, but you don't invite him to birthdays or Thanksgiving.

skipp
that is a great video
Obama's own words prove him to be deceitful, manipulative, covert .......

I don't know how anybody can defend this guy

I think that it's funny how the dems say that the repubs lie. Obama has done nothing but lie and deceive. When asked for proof, all you have to do is piece together his own words

the main stream media doesn't report this kind of thing. I had a 2 hour discussion the other day about single payer system heath insurance. The person that I was discussing it with agreed that single payer would not be good, but they insisted that Obama doesn't want that.......she obviously only believes Obama's campaign rhetoric instead of what he says during meetings, negotiations and at other times.

Paint the whole picture of what this guy wants and believes in, using his own words, and there is no way that he would ever get re-elected (supporters would have to actually hear what he says....instead of blindly following)

^Grant, you have only posted that same picture about 10 times. Maybe it was funny the first or second time, but seriously are you still amused by it? If you ever wonder why people don't laugh at your jokes at parties, ask yourself; "Should I keep asking the same joke over and over?".

Again, all the Romney supporters on this board avoid the obvious problem with what Etch-a-Sketch said about the "47%" he speaks of in the video. All of them are not Republicans. Some of them are retirees and some of them are US servicemen. Nice to know that Romney doesn't think he needs any of them to win the election. When in all actuality, he needs all of them and then some.

I really wish I could hang out with some of you guys on election night. I would probably need a truckload of Kleenex.

That's funny, Jeremy. I'd like to have the same confidence in either party as you do with the Dems. I still say it's a misconception that the poor do not benefit from some of the Republican's economic plans. Just think, the Dems.--even though Bernanke is a Republican--are backing this plan of pumping 40 billion a month into the economy. That's the same thing Iran used to do--many years ago-- with counterfeit money in order to inflate the economy. Ever think about how many hospitals could be built and medical students sent through school with that kind of money? That money is largely used to help corporations. No, the Dems. aren't just about helping the poor. They have their corporate sponsors as well.

"Obama is praised for telling lies and Romney is chastised for telling the truth. Nice."
I don't know what it would be that Obama would have to do to lose this election?
It doesn't make any difference to me who is the president is and I always pick the winner, but I thought for the first time I might be voting for the loser, thank you romney.
What matters to me is who is Governor of our State and I will never vote for a Republican again in the State of Ohio for as long as I live! Kasich is an Idiot!

^Grant, you have only posted that same picture about 10 times. Maybe it was funny the first or second time, but seriously are you still amused by it? If you ever wonder why people don't laugh at your jokes at parties, ask yourself; "Should I keep asking the same joke over and over?".

Again, all the Romney supporters on this board avoid the obvious problem with what Etch-a-Sketch said about the "47%" he speaks of in the video. All of them are not Republicans. Some of them are retirees and some of them are US servicemen. Nice to know that Romney doesn't think he needs any of them to win the election. When in all actuality, he needs all of them and then some.

I really wish I could hang out with some of you guys on election night. I would probably need a truckload of Kleenex.

Sorry, that post probably did not make much sense. I meant to say all of the 47% are not Democrats.

Ron, I don't have much faith in either party. I honestly don't feel that there is a whole lot of difference between the "real" Mitt and Obama. But Mitt has "reinvented" himself in order to win the nomination and the WH. And paying more in taxes doesn't bother me, I worry about the people that may be appointed to the SCOTUS by Romney. The last thing we need is the ability for the GOP to quash the rights of American taxpayers by trying to introduce an Amendment outlawing gay marriage (that is hugely popular with Republicans), as an example. What bothers me more than anything is when a certain group of Americans feel they have the power to take rights from other Americans.

But, on the other hand, the opposite group feels that they have the right to impose their beliefs of birth control (for example) in addition to adding crippling regulations that may hinder small business growth.

I see a HUGE difference between taking a government hand out and then moving on. What Mitt was talking about in his closed room speech Was people that make a career out of government handouts. As if the Government owes them something. These are the people he was referring to as victims, If you were on government assistance WHY would you vote for a guy that want to take that away! But I can understand how some people want to twist words to make them say one thing when they mean another.

Im Outa Here last post in this thread, But I will leave you with this:

Except I doubt that it's true at all. Look at the chart I posted. Many of the red states represent a lot of low wage earners. I think that there are a lot of Republican voters who are in that alleged 47% percent of people who pay no federal tax. They definitely aren't all Democrats.

Even more interesting:

"Here's what Romney said in the footage published Monday by the liberal magazine Mother Jones:
"All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That's an entitlement. And that government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."

The surprising thing about Romney's statement, though, is where the non-income tax filers live. They come from a surprisingly red base."

OK "G" go watch your Fox news
Jeremy,
Those bastards in the south! sucking the life out of the U.S. They think we owe them food, health care, housing, you name it!
or... are most of these people hard working people stuck in low paying jobs who earn less than $20,000 a year, so they don't have to pay income tax?
There is nothing dumber than a poor republican!

This morning, while listening to my drive time radio, which is a right, left and center mixed team, it was something to hear the right side become blind to the portion of the 47% who do not pay taxes due to actual deductions.

Gay marriage, abortion....all the hot buttons won't matter when the economy melts. How many people on here truly think we can keep the country running by borrowing money and giving it away? If I start maxing out my credit cards, just to get more, and more, and more, at what point will they stop giving them to me? We've got cities filing for bankruptcy, yet people are getting hot and bothered by these hot buttons. Come on now.

And as for Romney's comments, I'm still looking for what is wrong with them. Was it a good move during the race? Only time will tell, hell, who knows, they may have been the ones who "leaked" the video as a campaign move. Although a little odd, stranger things have happened.

I'm just tired of all the negativity going on in all this. If they want to drag each other through the mud, so be it, but I figure if Obama wants to drag Romney through it over his past, he shouldn't have to seal his up to keep us from looking into his.......

Our biggest problem will likely be that ballooning debt. It can't go on forever. We can't continue to deficit spend forever. Regardless of who gets in office, that will continue until it absolutely can't and something explodes. Some moderate tax hikes or decreases here or there or a change in how much welfare we give out isn't going to make the difference. I think we're pretty much screwed in the long run. People don't vote politicians in office who think long term. People vote for who will keep their taxes the lowest and cuts that might affect them at a minimum NOW or for at least the next 4 years. We're screwed. The only think I see saving us is some crazy advance in technology like fusion or a some other energy breakthrough which really throws a wrench in there to bring everyone's costs for everything down drastically. It'll be interesting to see, at least.

Of course if it comes from Fox it's meant to deceive. Here's a video that is less cut. Lou Dobbs doesn't get it either but apparently he doesn't spend as much effort clipping the context. Riech does not say the money should only go to minorities or unskilled workers. He says that there should be means to *include* minorities and unskilled workers. Considering that most stimulus money is filtered from the top down so that the wealthiest get their cut, what he says makes perfect sense until the puppet mastering types like Malkin twist the truth to make the lemming dance.

Regardless of the intent, and I do understand your point, that's the way the money was distributed. My friend was going to bid on a job and the supervisor told him not to waste his time. The company would have rather had him do the work, but the stimulus money had to go to another company because that company was owned by a woman.

Here's my deal and in response to DC: I do not mind a tax hike, but I am tired of bearing all the load. I follow the rules, am honest on my taxes and have not created some business just to reduce my income tax. My wife accepted unemployment when she was laid off, but went back to work when she was offered a job. She could have kept on it if we had chosen. Did we have to HAVE the money? Yes (if we didn't change spending) and no (if we had of changed spending). In our lives, this was the first time we accepted "help". What I want is fairness, personal responsibility and a person who works to actually have more than someone who chooses to sit on the couch. I simply do not think Obama, nor most of the dems, stand for any of that.

To get there, we need to cut or refine social programs, make people responsible, reduce EPA restrictions and taxes on business (within limits) and accept the lumps of our governments past frivolous and unrestrained spending. - Overly simplified I know.

Regardless of the intent, and I do understand your point, that's the way the money was distributed. My friend was going to bid on a job and the supervisor told him not to waste his time. The company would have rather had him do the work, but the stimulus money had to go to another company because that company was owned by a woman.

Not that "some guy another guy on the internet knows" isn't a great source, but are you saying that stimulus funding (which would have been road projects?) was allocated differently than traditional NTHSA spending?

Yes, this was one part--a small part--of a road package, and I know the "some guy" on the Internet is weak but it's the truth. However, I'm not familiar with enough with the different levels of funding to which you are referring.

I apologize. Take out the first with in the last sentence and it reads better. Yes, this was one part--a small part--of a road package, and I know the "some guy" on the Internet is weak but it's the truth. However, I'm not familiar enough with the different levels of funding to which you are referring to comment any further.

OK "G" go watch your Fox news
Jeremy,
Those bastards in the south! sucking the life out of the U.S. They think we owe them food, health care, housing, you name it!
or... are most of these people hard working people stuck in low paying jobs who earn less than $20,000 a year, so they don't have to pay income tax?
There is nothing dumber than a poor republican!

Trust me I know. I live in TN and hear that crap all the time. It's like the teabagger that was holding that sign that read, "Keep Your Government Hands off My Medicare".

I apologize. Take out the first with in the last sentence and it reads better. Yes, this was one part--a small part--of a road package, and I know the "some guy" on the Internet is weak but it's the truth. However, I'm not familiar enough with the different levels of funding to which you are referring to comment any further.

I'm pretty certain that those requirements / incentives predated the stimulus, but I'm no expert.